BTW, someone on this forum is going around giving members red karma, and putting MY name after it. One of the recipients told me. I don't DO karma!

Quoting: DOT 2 DOT

Why read something from a known propaganda outlet? That is the question. I understand you accept their information on face value. But posting left winger articles is hardly valid.

Quoting: Chip

What I'm looking for is an accurate analysis of whether or not gun bearing by ordinary citizens results in a net decrease in violent crimes due to a deterrence effect. Articles are very difficult to find. It looks like we may need to examine Kleck (1997)for a comprehensive review. Even so, I'm afraid the conclusions will prove to be indeterminate.

I hope this is more to your liking..........

2. Theory. A basic sketch of the theoretical relations among the three target variables is thatcrime is a function of guns and sanctions. The theoretical signs on the partial derivativesare subject to some dispute. It is generally recognized that prison incarceration reducescrime due to a combination of incarceration and deterrent effects (e.g., Moody andMarvell, 1994, 1997, 1998, Levitt, 1996). We would therefore expect a negative partialderivative on prison in the crime equation. The theoretical sign on guns in the crimeequation is much more controversial. Guns could cause crime because the more gunsthere are, the more will fall into the hands of criminals through loss, theft, etc. (Duggan2000) and more guns in the home or in public will lead to an escalation of violence,making crime more likely and more serious. On the other hand, Lott and Mustard (1997)find that the passage of right-to-carry concealed weapons laws, which presumablyincreases the number of guns both at home and in public, causes crime to decrease. Thetheory is that if a potential criminal is not sure which of a distribution of potential victimscan defend themselves efficiently with a gun, the criminal is likely to be deterred fromcommitting any crime involving face to face contact with such a potentially armedpopulace. It is entirely possible that both arguments are correct and the net effect of gunson crime could be positive, negative, or zero. Similarly, both arguments could be wrongand guns are completely independent of crime, yielding a zero coefficient on guns in the4crime equation. Thus, the sign of the partial derivative of guns in the crime equationremains an empirical question. See Kleck (1997) for a thorough review of the literature. Crime can also cause ordinary citizens to acquire guns for self-defense. Thus wewould expect that the partial derivative of crime in the gun equation is nonnegative.Society attempts to control crime through the use of sanctions. The criminal justicesystem includes the police who investigate crimes and make arrests, prosecutors andjudges who try the accused and sentence the guilty, and prisons where convicted felonsare incarcerated. We expect that crime is negatively related to sanctions and that prisonsare positively related to arrests. We assume that arrests and the prison population areindependent of the level of guns except indirectly through possible impacts on crime1.Assuming a linear model, the specification is as follows. 0 1 2 3 40 1 2 30 1 20 1 2CPGAC P G A ZP C A ZG C ZA C Z&#945; &#945; &#945; &#945; &#945;&#946; &#946; &#946; &#946;&#947; &#947; &#947;&#948; &#948; &#948;= + + + += + + += + += + + (1)where C is crime, P is prison incarceration, G is gun availability, A is arrests; ZC, ZP, ZGand ZA are vectors of exogenous variables, and&#945;1 3 1 2 1 1< 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 &#945; &#946; &#946; &#947; &#948; < > > &#8805; > .The sign on &#945;2 is not known a priori.

Government does not need to ban the guns, they need to improve defense strategies in public places, which is far easier and less combative a task...

If the schools had a gun in a locked room in case of these types of incidents, the wierdos might think twice about taking out kids in schools.

You do not have shootings in Malls right? why not? because they have security, usually armed, and cameras, and no one is dumb enough to want to start a shooting spree there.

The same should be the case for schools, perhaps they could hire 1 guard at each school, install metal detectors that can send a message to local police forces, I just don't know, but I do know that using the shooting as the basis upon which to implement excessive gun controls will only upset society even more - unless you wanna do it........

So, gun law should reflect improved security in schools and other public institutions, and that should be the end of it.

I can't see why criminals are free from any laws relating to gun control, while the majority of responsible people have to pay the price for the type of MO of someone who may already have been predisposed to kill.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29335662

Not to disparage a good post countering the douchebag OP...but we did have a mall shooting just the other day.

Quoting: Chip

TY, but you will find they are not as common, and response teams are there quickly...

In Mexico City, I heard there was a huge march, because people were getting robbed at gunpoint in the underground section of a car park in a Mall, and after that, they increased security in a major way, and there has not been a single incident since.

My point was that 'dickhead killing spreetard', is gonna try it on anywhere, but they may be less likely to target one specific location if there are armed personnel, it is a deterrent.

Having a locked weapon on campus or school grounds is the sensible, logical and intelligent option right now, especially considering the current mood of America.

BTW, someone on this forum is going around giving members red karma, and putting MY name after it. One of the recipients told me. I don't DO karma!

Quoting: DOT 2 DOT

Why read something from a known propaganda outlet? That is the question. I understand you accept their information on face value. But posting left winger articles is hardly valid.

Quoting: Chip

What I'm looking for is an accurate analysis of whether or not gun bearing by ordinary citizens results in a net decrease in violent crimes due to a deterrence effect. Articles are very difficult to find. It looks like we may need to examine Kleck (1997)for a comprehensive review. Even so, I'm afraid the conclusions will prove to be indeterminate.

I hope this is more to your liking..........

2. Theory. A basic sketch of the theoretical relations among the three target variables is thatcrime is a function of guns and sanctions. The theoretical signs on the partial derivativesare subject to some dispute. It is generally recognized that prison incarceration reducescrime due to a combination of incarceration and deterrent effects (e.g., Moody andMarvell, 1994, 1997, 1998, Levitt, 1996). We would therefore expect a negative partialderivative on prison in the crime equation. The theoretical sign on guns in the crimeequation is much more controversial. Guns could cause crime because the more gunsthere are, the more will fall into the hands of criminals through loss, theft, etc. (Duggan2000) and more guns in the home or in public will lead to an escalation of violence,making crime more likely and more serious. On the other hand, Lott and Mustard (1997)find that the passage of right-to-carry concealed weapons laws, which presumablyincreases the number of guns both at home and in public, causes crime to decrease. Thetheory is that if a potential criminal is not sure which of a distribution of potential victimscan defend themselves efficiently with a gun, the criminal is likely to be deterred fromcommitting any crime involving face to face contact with such a potentially armedpopulace. It is entirely possible that both arguments are correct and the net effect of gunson crime could be positive, negative, or zero. Similarly, both arguments could be wrongand guns are completely independent of crime, yielding a zero coefficient on guns in the4crime equation. Thus, the sign of the partial derivative of guns in the crime equationremains an empirical question. See Kleck (1997) for a thorough review of the literature. Crime can also cause ordinary citizens to acquire guns for self-defense. Thus wewould expect that the partial derivative of crime in the gun equation is nonnegative.Society attempts to control crime through the use of sanctions. The criminal justicesystem includes the police who investigate crimes and make arrests, prosecutors andjudges who try the accused and sentence the guilty, and prisons where convicted felonsare incarcerated. We expect that crime is negatively related to sanctions and that prisonsare positively related to arrests. We assume that arrests and the prison population areindependent of the level of guns except indirectly through possible impacts on crime1.Assuming a linear model, the specification is as follows. 0 1 2 3 40 1 2 30 1 20 1 2CPGAC P G A ZP C A ZG C ZA C Z&#945; &#945; &#945; &#945; &#945;&#946; &#946; &#946; &#946;&#947; &#947; &#947;&#948; &#948; &#948;= + + + += + + += + += + + (1)where C is crime, P is prison incarceration, G is gun availability, A is arrests; ZC, ZP, ZGand ZA are vectors of exogenous variables, and&#945;1 3 1 2 1 1< 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 &#945; &#946; &#946; &#947; &#948; < > > &#8805; > .The sign on &#945;2 is not known a priori.

Government does not need to ban the guns, they need to improve defense strategies in public places, which is far easier and less combative a task...

If the schools had a gun in a locked room in case of these types of incidents, the wierdos might think twice about taking out kids in schools.

You do not have shootings in Malls right? why not? because they have security, usually armed, and cameras, and no one is dumb enough to want to start a shooting spree there.

The same should be the case for schools, perhaps they could hire 1 guard at each school, install metal detectors that can send a message to local police forces, I just don't know, but I do know that using the shooting as the basis upon which to implement excessive gun controls will only upset society even more - unless you wanna do it........

So, gun law should reflect improved security in schools and other public institutions, and that should be the end of it.

I can't see why criminals are free from any laws relating to gun control, while the majority of responsible people have to pay the price for the type of MO of someone who may already have been predisposed to kill.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29335662

Not to disparage a good post countering the douchebag OP...but we did have a mall shooting just the other day.

Quoting: Chip

TY, but you will find they are not as common, and response teams are there quickly...

In Mexico City, I heard there was a huge march, because people were getting robbed at gunpoint in the underground section of a car park in a Mall, and after that, they increased security in a major way, and there has not been a single incident since.

My point was that 'dickhead killing spreetard', is gonna try it on anywhere, but they may be less likely to target one specific location if there are armed personnel, it is a deterrent.

Having a locked weapon on campus or school grounds is the sensible, logical and intelligent option right now, especially considering the current mood of America.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29335662

Definitely agree. Good post.

I believe school staff should conceal carry. If a teacher/administrator doesn't want to go armed, that's fine. That there are armed individuals "manning" the schools is a more than sufficient deterrent.

Example - I live in the Southern region of the US in a somewhat rural area. You almost NEVER hear of burglaries at night. Why? All of us "rednecks" have guns ;-)

Whether or not you accept it the facts are the nation is broke and have been laying off police officers left and right for over 3 years now...the crime rate would be going up if your assessment was accurate...unfortunately for you and the anti-gun rights advocates the crime rate continues to drop as more and more citizens are purchasing firearms.

Now, if you trust the government enough to vote for larger government as the OP and Dot does in their own admission, you then must accept the FBI reports as legitimate. Otherwise your integrity will be thoroughly questioned.

If not, you vote for a larger government that you yourself do not trust.

In light of these FACTS, you really need to change your own view on the subject and become progressive instead of "Progressives".

Whether or not you accept it the facts are the nation is broke and have been laying off police officers left and right for over 3 years now...the crime rate would be going up if your assessment was accurate...unfortunately for you and the anti-gun rights advocates the crime rate continues to drop as more and more citizens are purchasing firearms.

Now, if you trust the government enough to vote for larger government as the OP and Dot does in their own admission, you then must accept the FBI reports as legitimate?

If not, you vote for a larger government that you yourself do not trust.

In light of these FACTS, you really need to change your own view on the subject and become progressive instead of "Progressives".

Whether or not you accept it the facts are the nation is broke and have been laying off police officers left and right for over 3 years now...the crime rate would be going up if your assessment was accurate...unfortunately for you and the anti-gun rights advocates the crime rate continues to drop as more and more citizens are purchasing firearms.

Now, if you trust the government enough to vote for larger government as the OP and Dot does in their own admission, you then must accept the FBI reports as legitimate?

If not, you vote for a larger government that you yourself do not trust.

In light of these FACTS, you really need to change your own view on the subject and become progressive instead of "Progressives".

BTW, someone on this forum is going around giving members red karma, and putting MY name after it. One of the recipients told me. I don't DO karma!

Quoting: DOT 2 DOT

Why read something from a known propaganda outlet? That is the question. I understand you accept their information on face value. But posting left winger articles is hardly valid.

Quoting: Chip

What I'm looking for is an accurate analysis of whether or not gun bearing by ordinary citizens results in a net decrease in violent crimes due to a deterrence effect. Articles are very difficult to find. It looks like we may need to examine Kleck (1997)for a comprehensive review. Even so, I'm afraid the conclusions will prove to be indeterminate.

I hope this is more to your liking..........

2. Theory. A basic sketch of the theoretical relations among the three target variables is thatcrime is a function of guns and sanctions. The theoretical signs on the partial derivativesare subject to some dispute. It is generally recognized that prison incarceration reducescrime due to a combination of incarceration and deterrent effects (e.g., Moody andMarvell, 1994, 1997, 1998, Levitt, 1996). We would therefore expect a negative partialderivative on prison in the crime equation. The theoretical sign on guns in the crimeequation is much more controversial. Guns could cause crime because the more gunsthere are, the more will fall into the hands of criminals through loss, theft, etc. (Duggan2000) and more guns in the home or in public will lead to an escalation of violence,making crime more likely and more serious. On the other hand, Lott and Mustard (1997)find that the passage of right-to-carry concealed weapons laws, which presumablyincreases the number of guns both at home and in public, causes crime to decrease. Thetheory is that if a potential criminal is not sure which of a distribution of potential victimscan defend themselves efficiently with a gun, the criminal is likely to be deterred fromcommitting any crime involving face to face contact with such a potentially armedpopulace. It is entirely possible that both arguments are correct and the net effect of gunson crime could be positive, negative, or zero. Similarly, both arguments could be wrongand guns are completely independent of crime, yielding a zero coefficient on guns in the4crime equation. Thus, the sign of the partial derivative of guns in the crime equationremains an empirical question. See Kleck (1997) for a thorough review of the literature. Crime can also cause ordinary citizens to acquire guns for self-defense. Thus wewould expect that the partial derivative of crime in the gun equation is nonnegative.Society attempts to control crime through the use of sanctions. The criminal justicesystem includes the police who investigate crimes and make arrests, prosecutors andjudges who try the accused and sentence the guilty, and prisons where convicted felonsare incarcerated. We expect that crime is negatively related to sanctions and that prisonsare positively related to arrests. We assume that arrests and the prison population areindependent of the level of guns except indirectly through possible impacts on crime1.Assuming a linear model, the specification is as follows. 0 1 2 3 40 1 2 30 1 20 1 2CPGAC P G A ZP C A ZG C ZA C Z&#945; &#945; &#945; &#945; &#945;&#946; &#946; &#946; &#946;&#947; &#947; &#947;&#948; &#948; &#948;= + + + += + + += + += + + (1)where C is crime, P is prison incarceration, G is gun availability, A is arrests; ZC, ZP, ZGand ZA are vectors of exogenous variables, and&#945;1 3 1 2 1 1< 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 &#945; &#946; &#946; &#947; &#948; < > > &#8805; > .The sign on &#945;2 is not known a priori.

I did read the article, but again.. it's merely a correlation, which does not prove cause.

Let's look at another example..Japan, where virtually no one owns a gun.---------from:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

...

Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

...

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid,it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

John Stuart Mill************It's much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?Because it is easier to give someone the finger than a helping hand.Mike Royko

Look I usulally try not to be a lib tard...not fond of govt hand outs....not happy with most of our elected officials.... but if america started melting down hand guns...I BET the murder rate in the usa would drop.... its a shame that we will never know the real answer

Quoting: JoeGreen

Homicide rate is higher in the disarmed East.

Quoting: Kirk

Indeed, and also many other countries that have bans as in the UK with restricted permissions, you will find that crime is rife, and guess what, guns are also rife amongst the criminal elements, so how does banning guns and melting them down stop weapons related crime?

Answer: It doesn't, it exacerbates the problem and leaves women, the weak and the elderly more vunerable to attack, and crime increases exponentially, as there are more 'soft targets' that criminals can prey on.

You need to secure the public institutions, not the guns of responsible citizens as it is sending out a message of distrust between the government, and the tax payer.

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

Quoting: JoeGreen

We need hand guns for when dopes like you breed in too large of numbers we can cull you quickly.

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

Quoting: JoeGreen

This is what happens when you take away guns! People still act crazy and they still murder innocent people... see link

Why read something from a known propaganda outlet? That is the question. I understand you accept their information on face value. But posting left winger articles is hardly valid.

Quoting: Chip

What I'm looking for is an accurate analysis of whether or not gun bearing by ordinary citizens results in a net decrease in violent crimes due to a deterrence effect. Articles are very difficult to find. It looks like we may need to examine Kleck (1997)for a comprehensive review. Even so, I'm afraid the conclusions will prove to be indeterminate.

I hope this is more to your liking..........

2. Theory. A basic sketch of the theoretical relations among the three target variables is thatcrime is a function of guns and sanctions. The theoretical signs on the partial derivativesare subject to some dispute. It is generally recognized that prison incarceration reducescrime due to a combination of incarceration and deterrent effects (e.g., Moody andMarvell, 1994, 1997, 1998, Levitt, 1996). We would therefore expect a negative partialderivative on prison in the crime equation. The theoretical sign on guns in the crimeequation is much more controversial. Guns could cause crime because the more gunsthere are, the more will fall into the hands of criminals through loss, theft, etc. (Duggan2000) and more guns in the home or in public will lead to an escalation of violence,making crime more likely and more serious. On the other hand, Lott and Mustard (1997)find that the passage of right-to-carry concealed weapons laws, which presumablyincreases the number of guns both at home and in public, causes crime to decrease. Thetheory is that if a potential criminal is not sure which of a distribution of potential victimscan defend themselves efficiently with a gun, the criminal is likely to be deterred fromcommitting any crime involving face to face contact with such a potentially armedpopulace. It is entirely possible that both arguments are correct and the net effect of gunson crime could be positive, negative, or zero. Similarly, both arguments could be wrongand guns are completely independent of crime, yielding a zero coefficient on guns in the4crime equation. Thus, the sign of the partial derivative of guns in the crime equationremains an empirical question. See Kleck (1997) for a thorough review of the literature. Crime can also cause ordinary citizens to acquire guns for self-defense. Thus wewould expect that the partial derivative of crime in the gun equation is nonnegative.Society attempts to control crime through the use of sanctions. The criminal justicesystem includes the police who investigate crimes and make arrests, prosecutors andjudges who try the accused and sentence the guilty, and prisons where convicted felonsare incarcerated. We expect that crime is negatively related to sanctions and that prisonsare positively related to arrests. We assume that arrests and the prison population areindependent of the level of guns except indirectly through possible impacts on crime1.Assuming a linear model, the specification is as follows. 0 1 2 3 40 1 2 30 1 20 1 2CPGAC P G A ZP C A ZG C ZA C Z&#945; &#945; &#945; &#945; &#945;&#946; &#946; &#946; &#946;&#947; &#947; &#947;&#948; &#948; &#948;= + + + += + + += + += + + (1)where C is crime, P is prison incarceration, G is gun availability, A is arrests; ZC, ZP, ZGand ZA are vectors of exogenous variables, and&#945;1 3 1 2 1 1< 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 &#945; &#946; &#946; &#947; &#948; < > > &#8805; > .The sign on &#945;2 is not known a priori.

I did read the article, but again.. it's merely a correlation, which does not prove cause.

Let's look at another example..Japan, where virtually no one owns a gun.---------from:

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths

...

Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.

...

Quoting: DOT 2 DOT

Suck all this up. Gun laws have no affect on violent crimes rates and in most studies the crime rate goes up!!!!

Ask the 6 million Jews who were murdered by the nazis. Or or 60 million killed by Stalin. Both were socialists by the way....Oh that's right you can't. They're all dead. Murdered by the glorious "state" you liberal idiots worship.

Ever wonder why history keep repeating?Look in the mirror. Mindless idiots like you OP. That's why.

Government does not need to ban the guns, they need to improve defense strategies in public places, which is far easier and less combative a task...

If the schools had a gun in a locked room in case of these types of incidents, the wierdos might think twice about taking out kids in schools.

You do not have shootings in Malls right? why not? because they have security, usually armed, and cameras, and no one is dumb enough to want to start a shooting spree there.

The same should be the case for schools, perhaps they could hire 1 guard at each school, install metal detectors that can send a message to local police forces, I just don't know, but I do know that using the shooting as the basis upon which to implement excessive gun controls will only upset society even more - unless you wanna do it........

So, gun law should reflect improved security in schools and other public institutions, and that should be the end of it.

I can't see why criminals are free from any laws relating to gun control, while the majority of responsible people have to pay the price for the type of MO of someone who may already have been predisposed to kill.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29335662

Not to disparage a good post countering the douchebag OP...but we did have a mall shooting just the other day.

Quoting: Chip

TY, but you will find they are not as common, and response teams are there quickly...

In Mexico City, I heard there was a huge march, because people were getting robbed at gunpoint in the underground section of a car park in a Mall, and after that, they increased security in a major way, and there has not been a single incident since.

My point was that 'dickhead killing spreetard', is gonna try it on anywhere, but they may be less likely to target one specific location if there are armed personnel, it is a deterrent.

Having a locked weapon on campus or school grounds is the sensible, logical and intelligent option right now, especially considering the current mood of America.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29335662

Definitely agree. Good post.

I believe school staff should conceal carry. If a teacher/administrator doesn't want to go armed, that's fine. That there are armed individuals "manning" the schools is a more than sufficient deterrent.

Example - I live in the Southern region of the US in a somewhat rural area. You almost NEVER hear of burglaries at night. Why? All of us "rednecks" have guns ;-)

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8397139

I am not happy about the idea of teachers concealing and carrying though, they should not have to play that role, the guns must be stored in a locked room or cabinet, out of the public view.

I say this as I have met many teachers who bully kids and they have issues, so they should not really be allowed to conceal/carry.

Also it is the responsibility of the school or local government to protect the teachers and children.

As for your sleeping with doors open, yallzes can still get away with that, not only cause you have guns, but because yallzes are closely-knit community, but this is not the case in heavily populated, and I for one, envey you!

Sadly, the cat is out of the bag in the States and there's no way to put it back. We're heading for balkanization, whereas in Japan, they're all Japanese.

We can at least meet in the middle on the facts. I think Chip has seen to that.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8397139

Agree.. What is the need for automatic and semi automatic weapons that discharge 30 rounds with one trigger pull? That's not a sports gun. What is the application for something like this?

Quoting: DOT 2 DOT

There are people who can carry 25 speed loaders (quick reload devices for the ill knowledged) for a revolver and disperse over 100 accurate rounds only a couple of minutes slower than high tech weapons.

You tell me...when a sicko is hell bent on causing havoc...it's up to the people to stop this shit not the insane overbloated tax and spend crazy asshats that have fucked this nation in tha ass.

You just keep spouting out bullshit you've heard. No knowledge or forethought of your own...

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

Quoting: JoeGreen

If just ONE teacher had been allowed to carry a gun for protection, maybe one more child would be alive!!!

Criminals will always get guns, trying to ban law abiders from having them to protect themselves from criminals, is just stupid!

OK I get we have the right to protect ourselves...but I live in a city... and I can protect my house just fine with a rifle or shot gun. Almost all street murders in philly are hand guns.....NO CRAZY MUTHERFUCKER is gonna get into any school with a rifle or shot gun over thier shoulder.................Just sayin

Quoting: JoeGreen

If just ONE teacher had been allowed to carry a gun for protection, maybe one more child would be alive!!!

Criminals will always get guns, trying to ban law abiders from having them to protect themselves from criminals, is just stupid!